Of interest is that elaborators of Hadeeth commented that this narration proves three things: That Ubayy did not accept the abrogation doctrine, that the Sahaaba were not in agreement about it and that 2:106 proves it.

Thank you. Another narration seems to conflict with the above narration. You mentioned it in the quoted post below. Is this one authentic, and what is the full text?

Translation: Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, said, "Ubayy (ibn Ka`b) is the most knowledgeable among us of the abrogated."

My comment is: How come we don't have what Ubayy said about it? May God have been pleased with him. Why wasn't it documented? Why didn't the abrogationists quote him? I don't recall seeing his name in any of the literature naming even one abrogation claim! The other question to ask is: How did he know it? Did the prophet (PBUH) tell him?

Of interest is that elaborators of Hadeeth commented that this narration proves three things: That Ubayy did not accept the abrogation doctrine, that the Sahaaba were not in agreement about it and that 2:106 proves it.

A related post (in the widow verses thread) about the issue of leaving out something that the Prophet (PBUH) said, this time attributed to Uthman (RA). It would be great if we can get authenticate the narration and get the Arabic text.

In his book, Burton dedicates pages 56-80, more than 10% of the entire book, to this abrogation claim. He asserts that this is the prime example used in several classical books on "the Abrogating and the Abrogated," and also used during the time of the Sahaba and early Muslims, to show the abrogation of a ruling without elimination of the verse containing it (the abrogation mode our thesis is against). He contends that he proved the claim to be false, and was content with that as a proof of the fallacy of this abrogation mode (quite a bit of a leap).

He has however, provided a remarkably elaborate historical view of this early abrogation claim, citing a number of relevant hadiths, showing conflicting opinions of the major Sahaba, and pointing out the labored efforts to arrive at an abrogation conclusion. I can't ascertain the accuracy of his references (perhaps they should be checked against Zaid's analysis of the same abrogation claim since he also rejects it). However, there are two notable observations one gets from reading this part of the book (assuming the facts are verifiable as correct and unbiased):

1. There are irreconcilable disagreements between the major Sahaba that are crisply demonstrated in this case. This shows that quoting an opinion of a single Sahabi in the context of proving something is quite vulnerable to pick-and-choose biases.

2. On pages 58 and 59, the author mentions Othman Ibn Affan's (may God be pleased with him) insistence on including in the Othmani copies of the Quran all the verses that the Prophet (PBUH) kept reciting even when other Sahabis claimed their rules were superseded, and also insisted in maintaining the order of verses in the Quran as the Prophet recited them even if an earlier verse was claimed to have abrogated a later verse (like the present abrogation claim). Othman has always been my hero because he focussed on the most important mission of all which is preserving the Quran. May God reward him for that on behalf of all of us.

Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 27, backs up his thesis that abrogated verses are verses which were not included in the Quran, by quoting this narration, attributed to Ibn Abbaas,

كان أول ما نسخ من القرآن القبلة

Translation:"The first thing that was abrogated from the Quran was the direction of prayer."

In the footnotes, he explains that this narration has a gap in its narration chain (منقطع)! So, it's not authentic. Yet he relies on it heavily throught the book. He also mentions that it was also narrated by Ikrima and Al-Hasan Al-Basri, but doesn't talk about how authentic those narrations are.

Inauthentic narrations cannot be used for evidence of the validity of any argument. This should have been a fundamental rule of Islamic scholarship, but alas, it wasn't.

The irony is that Afaana, on page 31, uses the correct axiom - that what is not certain cannot abrogate what is certain - to condemn those who said that the stoning ruling abrogated 24:2.

A related post (in the widow verses thread) about the issue of leaving out something that the Prophet (PBUH) said, this time attributed to Uthman (RA). It would be great if we can get authenticate the narration and get the Arabic text.

2. On pages 58 and 59, the author mentions Othman Ibn Affan's (may God be pleased with him) insistence on including in the Othmani copies of the Quran all the verses that the Prophet (PBUH) kept reciting even when other Sahabis claimed their rules were superseded, and also insisted in maintaining the order of verses in the Quran as the Prophet recited them even if an earlier verse was claimed to have abrogated a later verse (like the present abrogation claim). Othman has always been my hero because he focussed on the most important mission of all which is preserving the Quran. May God reward him for that on behalf of all of us.

Here it is, as reported by Al-Bukhaari in his authentic compilations book,

Inauthentic narrations cannot be used for evidence of the validity of any argument. This should have been a fundamental rule of Islamic scholarship, but alas, it wasn't.

In science, this is called selection bias. It is very tempting when you are arguing a point to use all the "evidence" you think supports your argument, and in doing that the unauthentic but compelling narrations are particularly dangerous.

We should be conscious about this ourselves. The right approach is to be forthcoming about authenticity in the same breath when you quote something. This way, if the quote looks good in spite of the disclaimer, it is honest and there is no problem. If it doesn't look good enough with the disclaimer, then it is not really evidence that should be included.

...Al-Hamdaani also tells another narration, ending with him, which identifies the story teller as Abu-Yahya Al-Mu`arqib and that the man said that he stopped telling stories altogether after Ali chastised him.

`Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 36, says that the story was narrated by Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim Al-Hilaali, who died in 105 A.H, who attributed it to Ibn Abbaas. But there's one problem: He never met the man! Sa`eed ibn Jabeer said that Ad-Dhahhaak "never met Ibn Abbaas, so how can his narrating be accepted?" Ibn Hibbaan said "Everything narrated from Ad-Dhahhaak needs to be scrutinized."

`Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 36, says that the story was narrated by Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim Al-Hilaali, who died in 105 A.H, who attributed it to Ibn Abbaas. But there's one problem: He never met the man! Sa`eed ibn Jabeer said that Ad-Dhahhaak "never met Ibn Abbaas, so how can his narrating be accepted?" Ibn Hibbaan said "Everything narrated from Ad-Dhahhaak needs to be scrutinized."

`Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, pages 60-65, tries to show that abrogation did occur and that it was a wise thing to do. He starts out by making the erroneous statement "It's been proven that abrogation did occur in the verses of the Quran, also that some verses were caused to be forgotten, per 2:106."

That statement is erroneous because 2:106 is conditional, something which `Afaana never mentions! I hate to think that he didn't notice that, but I hate more to think that he didn't understand its implication.

He also makes another erroneous statement when he says "It's also been proven that verses of the Quran were replaced and placed in their current locations by instruction from God." He overlooks the fact that in order to replace something, you have to take it from its original place and move it somewhere else. But the verses were placed in their current location by order from the Prophet (PBUH) at the time they were revealed. Even if we concede that they were placed later, there's no evidence that the Prophet ordered the first placement.

Then in attempting to explain the "wisdom" of abrogation, he says that the abrogated verses came to handle a special event in a unique way that is only appropriate for it. Then when the society became organized, the permanent ruling was revealed and made to abrogate the temporary ruling.

Two problems:

There is no evidence that any event happened that required such special treatment and would not have been properly handled by the permanent ruling.

God could have inspired the claimed special treatment, as he inspired the Hadeeth to him. It isn't necessary to make such inspiration a verse then have to say later that it was abrogated!

`Afaana's final conclusion is correct: that there are no abrogated verses in the Quran that the Prophet (PBUH) left to us. `Afaana simply couldn't discard the narrations, all of which are singles (آحاد) and many are inauthentic or not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH), which imply abrogation occurred. Perhaps he tried to bridge the two sides of the abrogation issue, but guess what? The pro-abrogation folk did not take to the gesture!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum